Draft Day Sports Football

[AgustusM]

Are you ready for some... football simulation? - Wolverine Studios (http://www.wolverinestudios.com/2015/10/09/are-you-ready-for-some-football-simulation/)

feels like this is the 20th - we are launching a text sim football game! announcement I have read over the years from a wide variety of studios. Hope it is true, I will believe it when I see it.

[RomaGoth]

Just received an email regarding this. Should be interesting to follow the development of this game. I always enjoyed their basketball games and I am not even that big of a B-Ball fan.

[Gary Gorski]

It's real - Brooks has done a great job developing his game over the past few years and I felt that teaming with us would help take the game to another level.

We will have the "proof" soon enough for all those interested :)

[RomaGoth]

It's real - Brooks has done a great job developing his game over the past few years and I felt that teaming with us would help take the game to another level.

We will have the "proof" soon enough for all those interested :)

Always interested in a good sports sim game, especially football and hockey.

[digamma]

Good luck.

[jaygr]

This is good news. I was sad to hear that Beyond the Sideline is delayed (it is certainly understandable and Francis' health is most important), so hearing that another football sim is being developed definitely has me interested.

[Gary Gorski]

Wanted to share our blog post from today from Brooks. Its a basic intro as to what to expect from the game. We will be sharing more in depth details later on.

Introduction to Draft Day Sports: Pro Football (http://www.wolverinestudios.com/2015/10/25/introduction-to-draft-day-sports-pro-football/)

[FBPro]

Can't wait!!

[PilotMan]

Good luck Gary. It's a steep hill to climb, but it's exciting to see someone else giving it a go. I'll be following along.

[MizzouRah]

Wow.. the programmer of PFS football, I think this is a GREAT thing!

[Gary Gorski]

Another bump for another blog post. We're talking Game Modes today.

Draft Day Sports: Pro Football 2016 - Game Modes (http://www.wolverinestudios.com/2015/10/28/draft-day-sports-pro-football-2016-feature-discussion-game-modes/)

[Gary Gorski]

Some weekend reading for you - check out all of the different league formats and customization available in DDS: Pro Football 2016

Draft Day Sports: Pro Football 2016 - League Formats (http://www.wolverinestudios.com/2015/10/30/draft-day-sports-pro-football-2016-feature-discussion-league-formats/)

[MizzouRah]

Just release the damn game! ;)

[Gary Gorski]

Just release the damn game! ;)

Now what fun would that be :)

I don't want to say anything until its complete but Brooks is working on something that I really, really wanted to see in the game and I've got a couple items I'm reworking so we're getting close. In the meantime we're trying to do these blog posts to introduce the game and really talk about some of its key features. We will drop some screens in an upcoming blog post too.

[Dutch]

Despite my allegiance, I'm rooting for ya. #FOFhomer

[Ben E Lou]

Now what fun would that be :)

I don't want to say anything until its complete but Brooks is working on something that I really, really wanted to see in the game and I've got a couple items I'm reworking so we're getting close. In the meantime we're trying to do these blog posts to introduce the game and really talk about some of its key features. We will drop some screens in an upcoming blog post too.For those of us who already own PFS, how about highlighting something that's new/different? So far I haven't seen anything beyond highlighting existing features of a game that has been mired in mediocrity for years. I assume that it will be getting a new Wolverine interface, but what's improving with regard to actual gameplay?

[Gary Gorski]

For those of us who already own PFS, how about highlighting something that's new/different? So far I haven't seen anything beyond highlighting existing features of a game that has been mired in mediocrity for years. I assume that it will be getting a new Wolverine interface, but what's improving with regard to actual gameplay?

First Ben, I appreciate you commenting knowing the important role you have played in the history of FOF.

I know you're partial to FOF for obvious reasons but I disagree that the game was "mired in mediocrity" as you put it. The game is growing and developing as are my own titles. There are things Brooks has improved on and suggestions I had as well for making it better too. I just ask you and the rest of FOFC keep an open mind and hopefully support Brooks and the franchise. Don't forget OOTP and FOF and were not what they currently are in their first few runs either and wouldn't have turned into the games they are without both a very talented developer and the support of the community. We have the former - we just need the latter :)

We will be discussing new/different things but I asked Brooks to start with the basics to introduce the game to the Wolverine Studios customer base. I found that many of our customers had no knowledge of PFS and we found the questions they were asking and features they were asking for were things well known to PFS players so we're starting by introducing the basics and will expand from there.

I'm not coding much but from the dialogue I have had I know alot of work has been done in regards to the plays/playbooks, rosters (current and historical), training and AI logic for timeouts and game situations. There have been other tweaks and changes as well as a couple of my requests which are being worked on and of course as you mentioned I'm giving the UI an overhaul.

If there is anything in particular you felt needed improvement I would be glad to hear it either here or via PM/email and I will pass it along. I think from what I have seen and the work being done that DDS:PF is going to be a great franchise and this year's version is going to be a big step in that direction.

[Ben E Lou]

I know you're partial to FOF for obvious reasonsActually, no. I'd put down FOF tomorrow if another game came around that was a better fit for what I'm looking for in a football game. Also, you probably don't realize how much experience I've had with PFS. I've played every single version of it since at least 2011, probably further back than that. Let's be clear: there have been more than *30* patches released in that time, and I've tested every...single.....one. I'm using 2011 as the benchmark date because that was the year that I spearheaded a project to get quite a few long-time FOF MP participants to put PFS through its paces and give Brooks feedback on it. (Brooks himself said how much he appreciated the feedback and the kind of testing we did (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ccfl/forum/showthread.php?t=2253).)

If there is anything in particular you felt needed improvement I would be glad to hear itThe biggest problem is probably not fixable because of the insistence of some on a particular feature: there has yet to be a 2D engine in a text sim that was able to deliver both accurate statistical performance and proper game balance, and PFS falls victim to that issue. When Brooks tries to tweak one thing in the engine, something else goes out of wack. That's not unique to Brooks. I've seen that issue with every single football sim that has tried to go that route.

Just off the top of my head (last patch was in April, so haven't played since shortly after that patch), other long-time issues include statistical reporting problem (really??? a QB who threw 120 passes has the QB rating record at 142.1???), numerous players who start 16 games one season, play at MVP level, then rarely/never play again, wayyyyyyyyyyy too many 95+ yard plays (2D engine issue, no doubt,) poor handling of contracts/renegotiations, draft/Free Agency AI issues, etc.

I could go on, but will stop there. Bottom line: I've put more hours into PFS than any other text sim that I've never been able to get through 10 years of a career in. I keep picking it up because I want to like it, but what I've seen over the years makes me pessimistic that it's ever going to deliver. That doesn't mean that I'm closed off to it. But 30+ patches in four years that haven't addressed significant core issues do make me 100% stand by my statement that the game has been mired in mediocrity for years.

I'll run a long sim and post in more detail later. If you want to see some of the feedback I gave four years ago, start with this post and continue onward in that thread: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Football sims dead? (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=2522525#post2522525)

[Ben E Lou]

50-year sim...

<table class="Grid"><tbody><tr><th class="left" colspan="4">Longest Run</th></tr><tr class="alt"><td>Season</td><td>Team</td><td>Player</td><td>Record</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>Mia</td><td>Akers, C. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/676.html)</td><td>99</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2021</td><td>Cin</td><td>Morgan, J. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/4306.html)</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>2030</td><td>GB</td><td>Simonson, S. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/6567.html)</td><td>99</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2035</td><td>Ind</td><td>Peralta, V. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/7084.html)</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>2041</td><td>Phi</td><td>Rider, B. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/12327.html)</td><td>99</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2063</td><td>Stl</td><td>Mcdowell, W. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/18984.html)</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>2029</td><td>Den</td><td>Ames, D. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/4330.html)</td><td>98</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2035</td><td>Was</td><td>Alfonso, J. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/8980.html)</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><td>2035</td><td>Ind</td><td>Moorman, A. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/6987.html)</td><td>97</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2042</td><td>Ari</td><td>Hauser, L. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/12765.html)</td><td>97</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Dorsett is still the only one to go 99 yards...in 80ish years.)

Single-season pass attempt record: 587.
Punt returns are still capped at 89 yards. (Remember, I reported this four years ago.)

<table class="Grid"><tbody><tr><th class="left" colspan="4">Longest FG</th></tr><tr class="alt"><td>Season</td><td>Team</td><td>Player</td><td>Record</td></tr><tr><td>2031</td><td>Bal</td><td>Wicker, G. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/7890.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2033</td><td>Min</td><td>Beard, B. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/8231.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>2035</td><td>Det</td><td>Carmona, F. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/8645.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2045</td><td>Bal</td><td>Reynolds, V. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/11501.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>2047</td><td>Ind</td><td>Sanford, D. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/11692.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2050</td><td>KC</td><td>Silva, J. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/13615.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>2053</td><td>Car</td><td>Deluca, A. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/15531.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2059</td><td>SF</td><td>Bell, P. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/17891.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>2062</td><td>Bal</td><td>Buchanan, C. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/19241.html)</td><td>65</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td>2062</td><td>Hou</td><td>Hamilton, K. (http://www.yourleague.com/league//Players/18728.html)</td><td>65</td></tr></tbody></table>
Also reported four years ago: players on the all0-time leader board with comically low attempts: example, all 10 top FG% guys have 100%. Checked the first one. He has four FG attempts lifetime.

That's in like 10 minutes of a cursory look at stats.

[Gary Gorski]

Thank you Ben - I know how many hours you have poured into FOF over the years and the valuable resource you have been to Jim - I've seen the threads about the long term testing on FOF and of course your MP league. I'm very happy to learn that you have extensive experience with PFS and have been there to help Brooks in the past. I sincerely hope that you will continue to do that going forward with DDS:PF because that kind of support and feedback is priceless.

I can't speak for what the previous versions of the game were like. I know there has been a good deal of work done in terms of test sims for DDS:PF and I'm very excited about where we can take the game from here. I will run a test sim tonight of the latest build I have and see how things look. The nice thing about Brooks coming to Wolverine Studios is that we will be able to help each other out. I have been learning the code language he uses so I can mess around with it myself looking for ways to improve the game.

[TexasT]

Is this going to be released this year or next?

[Gary Gorski]

Our goal is to release it soon - I will give an exact date once I have one

[TexasT]

Good news!

[Ben E Lou]

The biggest problem is probably not fixable because of the insistence of some on a particular feature: there has yet to be a 2D engine in a text sim that was able to deliver both accurate statistical performance and proper game balance, and PFS falls victim to that issue. When Brooks tries to tweak one thing in the engine, something else goes out of wack. That's not unique to Brooks. I've seen that issue with every single football sim that has tried to go that route. Because of the issues that I've seen simply by simming seasons, I've never really gotten into the weeds of trying to play the game. My first guess as to how to break the 2D engine in gameplay was correct: just load up on speed. I didn't do any custom game planning or even depth charting. Just drafted a speed team on offense, let it sim, and checked the results.

Team went 15-1.
WR1: 50 catches, 1414 yards (28.3 ypc!), 19 TDs
WR2: 66 catches, 1113 yards, 18 TDs
WR3: 29 catches, 921 yards (31.8ypc!), 3 TDs.
RB1: 52 catches, 888 yards (17.1ypc for a RB!), 6 TDs

QB: 276 for 440 (62.7%), 5159 yards, 52 TDs, 14 INts, 129.3 rg. 11.7ypa

Again, that's a first-year snake dispersal draft team, run by someone who has never bothered to figure out the game's "secrets." This was literally my first guess at breaking the engine (with the latest patch, mind you,) and my first try at drafting a team that would do that.

I'll try it again with a little custom game planning...

[Ben E Lou]

Early rising kids day after time change, so just now had a chance to do this. ;)

Again, I don't know much about what works best in game planning. In normal circumstances, I would say "the people who have been playing this a lot could do even better," but given the stuff that group has completely overlooked up to now (see "trained monkeys" reference in the other thread from four years ago,) I have extremely low confidence that they've thought to try even the most obvious things. At any rate, I did what would seem obvious to me with a team like this on the game planning front: increased passing a little, increased tempo, increased usage of Spread and Shotgun. Team averaged 40.4ppg in going 16-0. Key players' stats:

QB: 266 for 432, 53 TD, 8 INT, 5461 yds, 12.6ypa, 20.5ypc, 137.3 rtg.
WR1: 52 catches, 1611 yards (31.0 ypc!), 17 TD
WR2: 66 catches, 1265 yards, 14 TD
RB1: 53 catches, 1055 yards, 9 TDs (Default playbooks, so I don't know if those are screen and swing passes that are always working, or if the game is sending him downfield a bunch against LBs because he's fast. He led the team with 24 drops, so my best guess is that the default playbooks are throwing deep passes to RBs a *lot*. This probably points to some serious undervaluing of OL, or perhaps to another speed issue: the fastest skill position players' little dots might be so fast that they're getting open downfield before the slower DE dots can get to the QB.)
TE: 60 catches, 824 yds, 6 TD
WR3: 32 catches, 715 yards, 8 TDs

And again, this is from someone who doesn't really know wtf he's doing when it comes to trying to play the game. From what I've seen here, though, give some of the smarter text simmers around FOFC a few weeks with the latest version of PFS, and I would expect someone to hit 6000yds/60TDs/145Rtg.

FWIW, I was trying to find out more ratings details, so I checked the Help File, and I discovered that Brooks actually tells the world how to break the game in the game's help file.

 Strength - Key attribute for making tackles, breaking tackles, holding blocks and breaking through blocks
 Agility - Key attribute for avoiding other players whether you're chasing them or running from them
 Arm - QB key Attribute for getting a ball to a receiver. Higher Arm means more completions.
 Intelligence - Key attribute for ball awareness. QB's need high INT to avoid interceptions. DB's need high INT to make interceptions.
 Accuracy - QB accuracy with his throws. Increases completion pct and lowers interception rate.
 Tackling - Defensive attribute for bringing down a ball carrier.
 Speed - Key attribute for ALL players. Most important attribute for gaining yards and for chasing down ball carriers.
 Hands - Key attribute for making catches, making blocks, and making interceptions.
 Pass Blocking - Attribute to make successful pass blocks.
 Run Blocking - Attribute to make successful run blocks.
 Endurance - Key attribute for all players. Higher endurance players can stay on the field longer.
 Kick Distance - For kickers this affects FG pct at longer distances. For Punters this affects punt distance.
 Kick Accuracy - For kickers this affects FG pct. For Punters this affects killing the ball inside the 20.
 Overall - In Relative mode if a player is the best of his position he'll be rated towards 100. If he's just in the middle he'll be 50. If he's among the worst he'll be at the bottom. In Absolute mode this rating is an overall rating regardless of their peers.
General Notes: Speed kills. This is the most important attribute in my opinion since if you can't get a hold of someone it doesn't matter what your other attributes are.

So maybe the idea here is to let humans know that the game is imbalanced so speed gets properly spread across MP leagues? If so, then it's still crystal clear that the AI does not value it remotely properly, as I was able to gather the league's speediest players and put together a juggernaut in just one offseason.

Gary, I know you asked for other feedback, but really, until this speed issue can be brought into balance, it's useless to do much of anything else. And to be 100% clear, this has been my experience with every single football simulation that attempts to move little dots on a grid around: acquire enough fast dots, and the system falls apart entirely. At the very least, the AI teams need to value speed more, the overall rating needs to value speed more, etc. etc. etc. Maybe that would fix it on the surface, but I suspect that it's a deeper issue involving player creation, relative ratings, etc.

[Ben E Lou]

One more data point, and then I'll stop: it appears that the issue with RBs catching deeper passes isn't limited to human-run teams. Check out the top few ypc numbers:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/Ben%20E%20Lou/rb_receiving.png

[Dutch]

I have never played PFS, after looking at this, I'm somewhat stunned that Ben put so much time into it. If nothing else, it proves that Ben isn't an enemy of this game. Rather he is just the most qualified critic a developer/programmer could ask for. Hopefully Gary and Co. don't take this analysis the wrong way.

[SlyBelle1]

One thing I hope gets looked at in this version of the game is how preseason games are handled. In PFS, unrealistic player usage happens during these games, which could have an impact on your season. Basically, starters play a lot during every single preseason game, even if you have the option to use mostly backups selected, I have even seen my starting QB take all the snaps. Plus, when I have seen he backup put in, very strange rotation. Sometimes the two QBs will alternate plays in the same series, sometimes the starter will start the game, and then come back in in the 4th qtr. On top of that, I have never seen more than 2 QBs in a preseason game.

Although it might seem minor, if your starters get hurt or you aren't developing your bench in the preseason, seems like it could very impactful.

[SlyBelle1]

I have never played PFS, after looking at this, I'm somewhat stunned that Ben put so much time into it. If nothing else, it proves that Ben isn't an enemy of this game. Rather he is just the most qualified critic a developer/programmer could ask for. Hopefully Gary and Co. don't take this analysis the wrong way.

I hope a lot of people help provide constructive input since I think we all want to see a very in depth and good football game to play. But really hoping they take the time to improve the engine, just not put PFS into Wolverine Studio's UI.

Hopefully some kind of beta testing program will be implemented prior to release, certainly would be interested in helping out if that's an option. Unless they plan to just do their typical early access program for that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At any rate, I did what would seem obvious to me with a team like this on the game planning front: increased passing a little, increased tempo, increased usage of Spread and Shotgun. Team averaged 40.4ppg in going 16-0.

I think the technical term for that might be "broke as shit".

[Ben E Lou]

I have never played PFS, after looking at this, I'm somewhat stunned that Ben put so much time into it. Here's the thing: the peripherals are really, really, really good and intuitive. Notice the screenie I posted: easy filtering by position, active players, retired players, and then custom filters as well. There's good stuff like that all over the place--especially when it comes to reporting--but the core of the game is quite rough. If FOF's engine could be used with the way PFS does a number of things (especially reporting,) it'd be as close to an ideal text sim as I've ever played.

[flere-imsaho]

Good QA is always a good thing. Ben taking the time to run the numbers is a good thing. Hopefully it can be incorporated and made into an awesome game.

[flere-imsaho]

I think the technical term for that might be "broke as shit".

Well, or the New England Patriots.

[Gary Gorski]

First I do thank Ben for his comments and I hope he and other people will work with Brooks and DDS:PF to help it become the game everyone wants. I also most certainly do not take his comments as some attempt at putting down the game. I think Ben wants what we are all after and that is the best game possible.

We're running test sims here looking to improve the game especially with the areas Ben has mentioned. Brooks is a great developer and probably the thing I like best about DDS:PF is his physics based 2D engine and the potential it holds. Of course that does present some challenges since he's not just regurgitating numbers but it opens up the awesome ability to have a 2D display. The more people who give it a look and give their feedback the better the game will become over time so we are thankful for everyone who puts in the time and has a passion for the game and desire for the game to improve - clearly things that come through in Ben's posts.

[TheRivals40]

I play PFS in MP and I like to think I'm a pretty decent player. All that matters is:
QB: Accuracy, Arm, Int, Agility
RB: Speed, Strength, Agility
WR: Speed, Hands, Agility
OL: Strength, RB, PB, Agility for OTs, hands for pancakes but from my testing they don't mean anything
DE: Speed, Strength
DT: Strength, Speed if you want 20+ sacks
LB: Speed, Tackling you want half-decent Agility and Strength
DB: Speed, Agility, hands for INTs but I find that unimportant

It basically comes down to three ratings in every category. Yet is still fairly easy to at least make the playoffs in MP mode because not many people know this. Hopefully not too many people who play PFS read that, haha

And yeah, SP is simply UNPLAYABLE (except sandbox mode for testing plays). The only challenge is in MP mode. Brooks (who makes the game) is a good coder but knows just about nothing about the game of football. If you watch the plays in 2D mode, none of them work remotely like the should. Look at he defensive gameplan options:
4-3
3-4
Nickel
Dime
Cover 2

How does cover 2 belong there? lol

[APC]

If FOF's engine could be used with the way PFS does a number of things (especially reporting,) it'd be as close to an ideal text sim as I've ever played.

The ideal football text sim would be to take the coach mode of Action PC football and add an offseason/career/GM element to it.

[Mota]

To me, the ideal football manager sim would be Football Manager but with actual football (American).

A game that makes you feel you're managing a team of real people and not just maximizing zeroes and ones.

[JimboJ]

And yeah, SP is simply UNPLAYABLE (except sandbox mode for testing plays). The only challenge is in MP mode.

That's a pretty strong statement. Can you be more specific? What exactly makes it unplayable?

[LaStarza61]

First I do thank Ben for his comments and I hope he and other people will work with Brooks and DDS:PF to help it become the game everyone wants. I also most certainly do not take his comments as some attempt at putting down the game. I think Ben wants what we are all after and that is the best game possible.

We're running test sims here looking to improve the game especially with the areas Ben has mentioned. Brooks is a great developer and probably the thing I like best about DDS:PF is his physics based 2D engine and the potential it holds. Of course that does present some challenges since he's not just regurgitating numbers but it opens up the awesome ability to have a 2D display. The more people who give it a look and give their feedback the better the game will become over time so we are thankful for everyone who puts in the time and has a passion for the game and desire for the game to improve - clearly things that come through in Ben's posts.

I hope the 2D engine is improved over the current one in PFS as far as being able to follow what the heck is going on. I absolutely hate the way the game is viewed currently!

[dubb93]

That's a pretty strong statement. Can you be more specific? What exactly makes it unplayable?

I don't own the game but it seems pretty obvious to me that the AI doesn't target speed and that if you just get the fastest guys in the league you could dominate. The fact that the AI doesn't realize that speed > everything else would make this pretty game breaking.

I mean...if speed kills...you have to make the AI realize it to make it playable.

[Gary Gorski]

Just a bump because we had a couple posts recently talking about things that would be additions for those familiar with the original PFS.

Draft Day Sports: Pro Football 2016 Feature Discussion - Training Camps - Wolverine Studios (http://www.wolverinestudios.com/2015/11/16/draft-day-sports-pro-football-2016-feature-discussion-training-camps/)

Draft Day Sports: Pro Football 2016 Feature Discussion - Play Calling - Wolverine Studios (http://www.wolverinestudios.com/2015/11/26/draft-day-sports-pro-football-2016-feature-discussion-play-calling/)

[TexasT]

OT, Gary, any word on the new NBA season disk?

[Cork]

Just saw this thread. This is fantastic news! I really like FPS and seeing it come into the WS fold should improve an already great game.

It's great to see that there are a few dedicated players willing to dig around and find the engine issues. Hopefully the devs will be able to use this info in a productive way and tighten up some of the holes in the engine.

Either way, it's a must buy for me.

[digamma]

Game to be released tomorrow.

[SlyBelle1]

Game to be released tomorrow.

This was a surprise to see...thought we would hear more about all its features before it fully came out. Really hope it turns out more than just PFS in Wolverine UI...certainly will be checking it out.

[SirFozzie]

I sent Gary a ping via email to see if I can get a copy for review on an8bitmind.

[jaygr]

This was a surprise to see...thought we would hear more about all its features before it fully came out. Really hope it turns out more than just PFS in Wolverine UI...certainly will be checking it out.

That's my worry too, and it seems like that could be the case.

Regardless I am happy to see a new football sim and look forward to hearing impressions. Even if currently it is just PFS in Wolverine UI for version one, hopefully it can be a title that lasts and gets improved upon.

[MizzouRah]

I'll wait on feedback for those of you who purchase.

[SlyBelle1]

According to their Facebook page, they will have a demo available so that will allow anybody considering it a chance to play beforehand.

[aran]

"This game is meant for a more casual audience" doesn't justify poor simulation and game-breaking strategies being easy to find out.

I gave Brooks dozens of items of feedback on sim accuracy and interface design from 2008 to 2010. He did make lots of improvements in that timeframe--but tbh most of it was basic stuff that I'd minimally expect of any game that claims to be football, like getting the flow of play right. I'm not talking about "didn't call a timeout to preserve time for offense to score at the end of the half when opponent was going 3-and-out", I'm talking about teams having 3rd and 11 from the 20 then 4th and 11 from the 1. I thought it was cute that quite a number of defensive players had pass attempts--gotta give those guys a chance to shine! Joking aside, Brooks was responsive to my input and did a good job at least taking care of these glaring problems.

There were some broader concerns that I had about talent progression not making much sense and draft classes not creating sensible talent distributions. I also had severe concerns about the rating system he was using being too low-resolution in terms of the skills it covers. Also it didn't look like he was using the right distribution of talent ever when generating players--Jim got it right when he chose a kind of long tail distribution with a spike at "vaguely competent" and his player ratings match that reality, whereas Brooks' ratings seemed to be Maddenized to a small range of like 70-100 for any player you'd consider playing.

In 2010 I noticed (and I think I reported) speed was overly dominant. Apparently it hasn't been fixed and has been embraced. That's a shame.

It's not hard to design a better UI than FOF's, but all the UI in the world will not make up for the fact that the game doesn't simulate football well. This is a game *specifically about* simulating football over the short- and medium-term. This "different markets" talk rings hollow to me. Sounds like an excuse for failing to do something that is hard. Lots of credit to Brooks for making the game in the first place and getting as far as he has gotten, but "different markets and audiences" is not a viable excuse for some of the issues Ben pointed out. I find it disappointing that Gary is using such rhetoric.

[Balldog]

Dec 23 is coming to an end...

[Dutch]

From a forum member on their web-site.

This just posted on Facebook....

We apologize for the delay in the DDS:PF16 launch - we are working hard to get everything through the system and will absolutely post again as soon as all of the issues are taken care of. Thanks for your patience and desire to get playing!

[jbergey22]

Looks like it was released

[Balldog]

Very interested to hear initial impressions

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

There is a demo as well.

[Gary Gorski]

The game has been released and my thanks in advance to anyone who checks it out, offers feedback and hopefully buys it to support Brooks' efforts and the continued advancement of the game.

Someone mentioned "rhetoric" about the game being for a different audience and being upset with that. DDSPF is not FOF with a much better interface - that's not the goal of the game. Brooks has based his engine off of different elements than Jim. That's why DDSPF has a 2D game display and FOF likely never will.

I can say that things from the PFS days have been addressed in development and in beta testing. There will always be room to improve those issues and with your support and feedback those things can and will improve over time. We had a couple blog posts about the basic intro to the game and some about improvements from PFS and there's a free demo of course which will cost you nothing but some time.

I hope everyone will keep an open mind and see this as an opportunity to help bring another football game to the place you individually want one to go. Brooks and Asger have been very receptive and worked hard to tweak some long term concerns and I specifically mentioned feedback from this thread to them and efforts were made to improve those concerns so your feedback is noticed and heard and acted upon.

Thanks again to everyone who checks it out - I like to look at this as the start of a great franchise but it's going to take time, feedback and support to get there from the good bones it started with.

[Ben E Lou]

Brooks and Asger have been very receptive and worked hard to tweak some long term concerns and I specifically mentioned feedback from this thread to them and efforts were made to improve those concerns so your feedback is noticed and heard and acted upon.Am I missing something, or is part of the effort made to improve those concerns is to make sure that some of them can't be easily seen by removing the "sim multiple seasons" button???" Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

[Ben E Lou]

On the one hand, speed appears to have gotten a nerf. On the other, residual effect appears to be near-broken rushing stats. Here are ypc numbers for every RB over 1,000 yards in first season:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="299"><colgroup><col style="width:48pt" width="64"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:841;width:17pt" width="23"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1389;width:29pt" width="38"> <col style="width:48pt" span="2" width="64"> <col style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1682;width:35pt" width="46"> </colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;width:48pt" height="20" width="64">Season</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-left:none;width:17pt" width="23">G</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-left:none;width:29pt" width="38">GS</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-left:none;width:48pt" width="64">RushAtt</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-left:none;width:48pt" width="64">RushYds</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-left:none;width:35pt" width="46">YPC</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">278</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1028</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.70</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">354</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1380</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.90</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">283</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1149</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">4.06</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">368</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1338</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.64</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">388</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1408</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.63</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">297</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1182</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.98</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">381</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1444</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.79</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">469</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1663</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.55</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">386</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1432</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.71</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">379</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1376</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.63</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">444</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1656</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.73</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">411</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1495</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.64</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">261</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1026</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.93</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">393</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1251</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.18</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">411</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1455</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.54</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">455</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1570</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.45</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">397</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1476</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.72</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">281</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1064</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.79</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">447</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1645</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.68</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">323</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1309</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">4.05</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">14</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">14</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">379</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1430</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.77</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">359</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1315</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.66</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">15</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">439</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1528</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.48</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td class="xl64" style="height:15.0pt;border-top:none" align="right" height="20">2015</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">16</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">276</td> <td class="xl64" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">1098</td> <td class="xl65" style="border-top:none;border-left:none" align="right">3.98</td> </tr> </tbody></table>


(Also, I suppose one way to avoid the issue of some dude being reported as the career ypc leader with 4 carries for 90 yards is to...remove the career ypc leader stat. *shurg*)

[Ben E Lou]

Am I missing something, or is part of the effort made to improve those concerns is to make sure that some of them can't be easily seen by removing the "sim multiple seasons" button???" Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.Looked around a lot with several configurations and several start points. It..is...gone. Yes, they *removed* this feature--the feature that I used in this very thread to outline several problems with the sim engine. I suppose that if you can't/won't address the issues, making them harder to find is a smart business decision. *shurg*

No, I will not be putting one thin dime into this version until something changes in that regard. That's inexcusable.

[Dolemite73]

Looked around a lot with several configurations and several start points. It..is...gone. Yes, they *removed* this feature--the feature that I used in this very thread to outline several problems with the sim engine. I suppose that if you can't/won't address the issues, making them harder to find is a smart business decision. *shurg*

No, I will not be putting one thin dime into this version until something changes in that regard. That's inexcusable.

It's not in the demo. Gotta buy it. Just simmed 10 seasons.

[Ben E Lou]

It's not in the demo. Gotta buy it. Just simmed 10 seasons.Oh, that makes sense. "They won't be able to figure out that the stats do not hold up long-term until they've already given us their money." Got it.

Can you upload the HTML output from that sim? I'd prefer 50, but my strong suspicion after manually simming three seasons with the demo is that significant issues are going to be fairly obvious in just 10.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Or just check the ypc issue and give us a report.

[Dolemite73]

Oh, that makes sense. "They won't be able to figure out that the stats do not hold up long-term until they've already given us their money." Got it.

Can you upload the HTML output from that sim? I'd prefer 50, but my strong suspicion after manually simming three seasons with the demo is that significant issues are going to be fairly obvious in just 10.

Gonna open a test league and sim 50 seasons. Give me a few.

[Ben E Lou]

Gonna open a test league and sim 50 seasons. Give me a few.Thanks.

If you don't have a place to upload the HTML, please look for these things that I've noticed in the demo:
Extremely low offensive stats for RBs in particular. (League overall ypc was only 3.61 in latest 2 seasons. Last time the NFL saw a number that low was 1946.)
Very high yards per completion and low completion percentages. (12.98 on the former---not since 1972 in the NFL)
Extremely high rush attempt numbers for individual backs (7 guys with 432 or greater attempts in the current season...NFL record is 416)
Strong signs of over-nerf on speed, such as a RB with 96 speed and 92 overall having a long gain for the year of 17 yards.

[Jukeman]

Ugh why can't I have a good football sim for single player? It's like the football gods hate me. Grey dog is taking forever with its game and BTS had some unfortunate setbacks. I am sure this game would be great with time but I unrealistically (considering how fast the game was release) expected more than a PFS tune up and paint job. $35 is a steep price considering I paid $15 for early access EHM which made leaps of improvements from EHM 2007.

I only played the demo and I am sure some of my problems would be fixed in do time but these problems are important sim engine flaws which were already mentioned like a single running back carrying the ball over 400 times despite playing RB committee.

I expected more from the UI considering the rest of the DDS titles. It still seem like I am playing on a spread sheet at times.

I won't give up on the game, I need to continue following to see what is fixed before I drop the coins. It just felt like I was playing PFS with a slightly different UI. Maybe all of the difference is in the AI?

Anyways, I always felt PFS had the potential to be great but just needed more development.

[Dolemite73]

Thanks.

If you don't have a place to upload the HTML, please look for these things that I've noticed in the demo:
Extremely low offensive stats for RBs in particular. (League overall ypc was only 3.61 in latest 2 seasons. Last time the NFL saw a number that low was 1946.)
Very high yards per completion and low completion percentages. (12.98 on the former---not since 1972 in the NFL)
Extremely high rush attempt numbers for individual backs (7 guys with 432 or greater attempts in the current season...NFL record is 416)
Strong signs of over-nerf on speed, such as a RB with 96 speed and 92 overall having a long gain for the year of 17 yards.


1. 50 year average for qualified RBs give a 3.69 YPC. Definitely low.

2. Yards per completion is 11.77 yards
Yards per attepmt is 7.41 yards
Completion % is 62.98%

3. Yes, the rushing attempts are very high.

Brooks is aware and the first patch should get the stats back where they should be, hopefully.

[jbergey22]

We needed Ben on the beta testing team. Many of the initial issues seem to be the exact things he mentioned back in October.

NFL sim would be a very difficult venture. All the scrutiny, different strategies, limited sample sizes from season to season are just some of the reasons.

The game has changed so much from decade to decade as well. 70s was the decade of defense, 80s was the run game, and short passes, 90s had a varied combination of strategies, after 2000 we have seen offense take off and teams using the pass more often and spreading out the defense to create opportunity to levels never previously seen.

Good luck with this venture Brooks! Trying to create a modern day simulation that can also re-create NFL history is going to be tough to pull off.

[BradS]

Ugh why can't I have a good football sim for single player? It's like the football gods hate me.

I'm convinced. It is a curse, seriously. Playing around with this demo just makes me want a OOTP game of Pro Football that will play as it should right out of the box. Global settings to tweak to your heart's content. With all the stats, filters and info you would want in a aeshetically pleasing package. But it was not to be. How could we reverse this insidous curse that binds us. Give us the kind of American Football game that we so richly deserve! I tell ya, I just do not know:(

[Julio Riddols]

I'm not playing the game, but running game averaging about a half yard too little isn't too bad compared to before.. The pass yards per attempt seems pretty good though, completion percentage as well.

[AgustusM]

I bought it, but then again I bought PFS, Mogul and really every combination of 1s and 0s with NFL on it for the past 25 years.

at this point it really is just PFS with an improved interface and that is considerably lower then my expectations.

What I want is something in the FM\OOTP class

what I would settle for is something a notch better then FOF or on par with the wolverine basketball games. This just isn't there yet. Maybe someday, but not yet.

for now it is back to a rotation of FOF, Madden Coach Mode and EA Head Coach and lots and lots of pining for a game that has the FOF detail and the 1980s level play calling and graphics of XOR. meh

[Gary Gorski]

Info on the first update - primarily addressing stats

&bull; View topic - DDS: Pro Football 2016 - 1st Update (http://www.wolverinestudios.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=214&t=20837)

[SirFozzie]

geez, on Christmas Gary? Hopefully you're not tearing yourself from the Christmas table for us ;)

[QuikSand]

That's a really encouraging sign. I haven't bought yet, but usually do just to support the genre.

[mtolson]

Wow, patch on christmas day. Awesome christmas gift. Thank you Gary (and Brooks)

[Dutch]

You shouldn't have...but its a fantastic gesture. Merry Christmas. :)

[BishopMVP]

Ugh why can't I have a good football sim for single player?FOF doesn't qualify? Sure, good players will always need a couple house rules (or the game would need to be borderline impossible for a large portion of the fanbase, which just doesn't seem like smart business), but that single player AI is pretty legit. And it probably would appear even better if it weren't for some of the MP freaks digging and posting super-deep test results about combine cutoffs, or which bar is most important for WR's, etc.

I just don't know if what people want is possible. FOF is incredibly accurate as a simulation, and can clearly (if not easily) be upgraded with a 2D or even a 3D viewer at some point. But that's where the play's already been decided and you're just watching the result, and even Jim fully admits it's basically his idea of where stats should be instead of trying to perfectly copy the current NFL season. In a game like Madden, or DDS if I'm reading it right, where you have a dynamic engine that plays it out in real time and generates the stats from that I just don't know if those stats can mimic "real NFL" as closely as people want (which for simplicity's sake let's say is somewhere between Madden Sim mode stats and FOF's detail). Let alone if people actually want to play across different eras and have stats accurately reflect those. Even FM, which is the gold standard and has a massive budget and history struggles to make their 3D engine look like real soccer and produce the same stats.

Granted, I do think as encouraging a sign it is that a patch was put out this quickly, it also makes me question why that wasn't done before the release. I clearly don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and I don't want to offend either side because we're all hoping for the best and want to encourage development from any angle, but if someone like Ben or MalcPow was basically offering to deep test stats and offering constructive criticism for free I'd find a way to look in to what they're saying. 23/24 RB's have YPC's between 3.48 and 4.06? 7 RB's with 411+ carries in season one? These aren't some fringe stats or something that crops up 30 years in and necessitates a tweak to the rookie generation algorithm.

[Jukeman]

Compared to other games single player like OOTP Baseball, EHM, FM and even DDS basketball games despite the bugs? No, sure it beats out all of the other football sims in that category but its not good enough. Also, great depth as far as stats and strategy goes but lack everything else depth wise. 2D/3D is something I am not really concerned about. I need a world with personality, I need to be immersed and I need AI that is not easily exploited. Those are way more important to me than graphics outside of GUI.

[MizzouRah]

Here's a good video for those on the fence.. has potential but isn't quite there yet it looks like.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XCkCoIWtqUc" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="720" width="1280"></iframe>

[SlyBelle1]

Hopefully, they put much more into it with next year's version....although a couple of new things, largely the same as PFS with a new paint job. I wanted to like it and purchase it, but for $35 (compared to PFS under $20), just can't justify it until many other things included.

[JimboJ]

I felt the same way, but I bought it anyway just to support the effort. I very much want to see this genre advance, and I want to do my part to support it.

[SlyBelle1]

Although I like to support as well, two way street for the developer to show their commitment as well with more advancement:)

[MizzouRah]

I'll pass this year.. can't wait to see what a year of development with Gary does for the game.

I won't lie.. the 2d alone has me wanting it. ;)

[SlyBelle1]

Problem with 2d is just a replay, no coaching and seeing things unfold....I never even bother with it

[QuikSand]

Here's a good video for those on the fence..

Yes, that was very helpful for me.

[jaygr]

Has anyone been playing this still? Have there been any upgrades or improvements? Wolverine currently has a 20% discount on everything so I was just curious. Still a bit pricey if it hasn't improved much yet though.

[TheRivals40]

Has anyone been playing this still? Have there been any upgrades or improvements? Wolverine currently has a 20% discount on everything so I was just curious. Still a bit pricey if it hasn't improved much yet though.

Yes, there have been many issues to fix statistical issues that have been pointed out, and while the AI still sucks, you can join an MP league and it should be a good challenge.

[tarcone]

And its on sale, as all their games are, for 50% off.

[Gary Gorski]

Quick bump of this thread - with the time it took to develop DDS:CF 2017 this year we didn't have a chance to make a new pro version so Brooks decided to spend a little time updating DDS:PF 2016 instead.

The update is available from our site, free of course, and here's what it covers.

1) New 2016-2017 rosters
2) Fixes for bad team id's in historical imports... should be able to re-create any league from 1970 forward (1960-1970 may be possible but I haven't tested each year)
3) Fixes for CSV export
4) Fix for crashes when personalities were disabled
5) Updated training camps
6) Updated rank players screen
7) Updated custom playbooks (filters and updating of weights)
8) Added original position label to player form
9) Updates to prevent/penalize backs going over 25-30 carries

If you're familiar with DDS:CF 2017 you know a huge difference is that CF became coachable in the 2D while PF 2016 just used the 2D as a replay. That hasn't changed with this patch but it certainly will be one of the updates for DDS:PF 18.